K.J. MANJUNATH S/O LATE K.R. JAMBUKESHWAR AND K.J. RAVISHNAKR S/O LATE K.P. JAMBUKESHWAR PROPRIETOR JAYA PADMA MOTORS Vs. ANITHA RAMESH @ K.J. ANITHA W/O RAMESH N. D/O LATE K.R. JAMBUKESHWAR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENTS 1 and 2/Plaintiffs have filed suit against the Petitioners and Respondents 3 to 12 for relief of partition and separate possession claiming l/4th share in the plaint schedule properties and consequential reliefs. The Petitioners/Defendants 1 and 2 have filed written statement on 27.10.2007 and prayed for dismissal of the suit. Issues were framed. 1st Plaintiff filed I.A. No. 1/2009 dated 14.12.2009 under Order 6 Rule 17 Code of Code of Civil Procedure seeking leave of the court to amend the plaint and to incorporate the proposed amendment therein in the plaint. The 1st Defendant filed statement of objections to the said application. The trial court has allowed I.A No. 1/2009. Aggrieved, Defendants 1 and 2 have questioned the said order in this writ petition.

(2.) SRI P.D. Surana, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners firstly contended that, the properties sought to be incorporated in the plaint, according to the Plaintiffs, were purchased in the name of the Petitioners by their father late K.R. Jambukeshwar and trial of such a plea is barred under Section 3 of the Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act, 1988 and hence, the question of allowing such contention does not arise. Secondly, the pleading in the plaint and the proposed pleading are inconsistent. The Plaintiffs are not entitled to maintain inconsistent pleading. learned Counsel pointed out that, the Plaintiffs on one hand contended that, the plaint schedule properties are the individual properties of late K.R. Jambukeshwar and by the proposed amendment, they have sought to (sic) that, the suit properties are joint family properties. Thirdly, the objections raised with regard to I.A. No. 1/2009 has not been considered making into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and in accordance with law and hence, the impugned order is irrational and illegal. Reliance was placed on the decision reported at Baldev Singh and Others Etc. Vs. Manohar Singh and Another Etc., AIR 2006 SC 2832 .

(3.) IT transpired at the time of hearing that, the objection by the Petitioners is with regard to proposed pleading at para 7(a), 8(c) and (d) and the properties in relation thereto. Sri P.D. Surana submitted that, the Petitioners have no objection for the amendment allowed being maintained with regard to the proposed pleading under I.A No. 1/2009, namely para 8(a) and (b).